To those who claim the Bush administration lied about WMD's

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Look, I'm not saying Bush is perfect. I'm not saying that their weren't intelligence failures during the Bush administration prior to 9/11 and prior to Iraq.
All I'm saying is that those people claiming that this was a "false war" based on Bush's lies about WMD are wrong.
Was the intelligence about WMD's wrong?
Sure looks like it right now.

Was it all just made up by Bush and company as many people claim?
Of course not.

The majority of the intelligence used to justify the war came from the Clinton administration.
Clinton and the democrats reached the same, apparently incorrect, conclusion's about Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs.


If the democrats were fooled by lies as they say now, then Clinton played just as big a part in doing the fooling as Bush.

EDIT: And to those who think the idea of Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists was just a Bush scare tactic, remember, Clinton said it first.
I don't recall to many of bush's war mongering speech say we haven't bothered to get any new intelligence. Bush choose to go to war so he is responisible but it is the typical neo-con response to blame Clinton.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Shanti
Look, I'm not saying Bush is perfect. I'm not saying that their weren't intelligence failures during the Bush administration prior to 9/11 and prior to Iraq.
All I'm saying is that those people claiming that this was a "false war" based on Bush's lies about WMD are wrong.
Was the intelligence about WMD's wrong?
Sure looks like it right now.

Was it all just made up by Bush and company as many people claim?
Of course not.

The majority of the intelligence used to justify the war came from the Clinton administration.
Clinton and the democrats reached the same, apparently incorrect, conclusion's about Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs.


If the democrats were fooled by lies as they say now, then Clinton played just as big a part in doing the fooling as Bush.

EDIT: And to those who think the idea of Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists was just a Bush scare tactic, remember, Clinton said it first.
I don't recall to many of bush's war mongering speech say we haven't bothered to get any new intelligence. Bush choose to go to war so he is responisible but it is the typical neo-con response to blame Clinton.
I'm a realist, not a neo-con. But if labeling me makes you feel better than go ahead. You damn commie. ;););)

I didn't say that everything should be blamed on Clinton. I simply said, for the 16th time, that IF you think Bush lied to us about WMD and just made all this stuff up, then Clinton was obviously his partner in the conspiracy.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
Hallelujah! I have seen the light! I should have known it was Clinton's fault. It is always Clinton's fault.

Now that I think about it, this isn't the first time Clinton ignored vital intel. I know for a fact that Clinton knew of intelligence about gas chambers in Germany. These gas chambers are designed to execute people en masse. Clinton did nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is an OUTRAGE! MILLIONS have DIED already. These ATROCITIES cannot continue. Thank God we have a strong leader like GEORGE W. BUSH who isn't afraid to confront Germany head-on, to jump in with both guns blazing. That damn LIBERAL Clinton just sat around the White House reading reports and becoming informed. We don't have time for such nonsense. We MUST invade Germany NOW before their next attack comes in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD! Are you with me, or do YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE?!!

:|



Since some of you seem to be in deep denial about the incredibly obvious, the fact that Bush used old intelligence to build his excuse for invasion is much of the problem. Things change. Time passes. Old intelligence is bad intelligence.

Furthermore, contrary to your ill-informed bleating, Clinton did act on this intelligence. Using current, first-hand intelligence provided by Scott Ritter and his team, we bombed Iraq's WMD facilities for four days. According to Ritter, these attacks completely destroyed Iraq's nuclear abilities and destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. Ritter estimated the bombing destroyed at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's bio/chem abilities, and that by 2002, any remaining bio/chem agents were worthless "goo".

That's the difference in a nutshell. Clinton used accurate intelligence to conduct targeted strikes on real targets. Bush rushed to invade Iraq using bad, often bogus intelligence to sell his plot to the American public. Clinton addressed a problem. Bush decided to try his hand at nation-building.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: miguel
Great post. I wonder where all the "it's Bush's fault!" and "Bush is a liar!" fanatics are...

*BUMP*
It took us a while to stop laughing at this latest entry in the "Blame Clinton Marathon".
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Shanti
Look, I'm not saying Bush is perfect. I'm not saying that their weren't intelligence failures during the Bush administration prior to 9/11 and prior to Iraq.
All I'm saying is that those people claiming that this was a "false war" based on Bush's lies about WMD are wrong.
Was the intelligence about WMD's wrong?
Sure looks like it right now.

Was it all just made up by Bush and company as many people claim?
Of course not.

The majority of the intelligence used to justify the war came from the Clinton administration.
Clinton and the democrats reached the same, apparently incorrect, conclusion's about Saddam's WMD's and WMD programs.


If the democrats were fooled by lies as they say now, then Clinton played just as big a part in doing the fooling as Bush.

EDIT: And to those who think the idea of Saddam giving WMD's to terrorists was just a Bush scare tactic, remember, Clinton said it first.
I don't recall to many of bush's war mongering speech say we haven't bothered to get any new intelligence. Bush choose to go to war so he is responisible but it is the typical neo-con response to blame Clinton.
I'm a realist, not a neo-con. But if labeling me makes you feel better than go ahead. You damn commie. ;););)

I didn't say that everything should be blamed on Clinton. I simply said, for the 16th time, that IF you think Bush lied to us about WMD and just made all this stuff up, then Clinton was obviously his partner in the conspiracy.
Or it was true when Clinton was talking but saddam might have eleminated the weapons. Bush was to incomptant to make sure Saddam still had WMD. Also Bush said he knew were the weapons are located and if you know where something is located you better be using something information that is new.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
Hallelujah! I have seen the light! I should have known it was Clinton's fault. It is always Clinton's fault.

Now that I think about it, this isn't the first time Clinton ignored vital intel. I know for a fact that Clinton knew of intelligence about gas chambers in Germany. These gas chambers are designed to execute people en masse. Clinton did nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is an OUTRAGE! MILLIONS have DIED already. These ATROCITIES cannot continue. Thank God we have a strong leader like GEORGE W. BUSH who isn't afraid to confront Germany head-on, to jump in with both guns blazing. That damn LIBERAL Clinton just sat around the White House reading reports and becoming informed. We don't have time for such nonsense. We MUST invade Germany NOW before their next attack comes in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD! Are you with me, or do YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE?!!

:|



Since some of you seem to be in deep denial about the incredibly obvious, the fact that Bush used old intelligence to build his excuse for invasion is much of the problem. Things change. Time passes. Old intelligence is bad intelligence.

Furthermore, contrary to your ill-informed bleating, Clinton did act on this intelligence. Using current, first-hand intelligence provided by Scott Ritter and his team, we bombed Iraq's WMD facilities for four days. According to Ritter, these attacks completely destroyed Iraq's nuclear abilities and destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. Ritter estimated the bombing destroyed at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's bio/chem abilities, and that by 2002, any remaining bio/chem agents were worthless "goo".

That's the difference in a nutshell. Clinton used accurate intelligence to conduct targeted strikes on real targets. Bush rushed to invade Iraq using bad, often bogus intelligence to sell his plot to the American public. Clinton addressed a problem. Bush decided to try his hand at nation-building.
Did I blame Clinton?

You are, of course, referring to operation Desert Fox, conducted in December 1998.
But I thought Saddam destroyed all his weapons immediately following the first gulf war.
If we took out all the weapons in 1998, then why are there so many democrats stating, in 2001 and later, that they have no doubt that Saddam has and is continuing to develop WMD?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
the only thing missing now is the weapons themselves.
BINGO. Let's wait and see.
We've waited long enough.
I respect your opinion, but disagree.
Is there a cerain amount of time that's acceptable? At what point would you consider it to be prudent to start to ask questions?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
Hallelujah! I have seen the light! I should have known it was Clinton's fault. It is always Clinton's fault.

Now that I think about it, this isn't the first time Clinton ignored vital intel. I know for a fact that Clinton knew of intelligence about gas chambers in Germany. These gas chambers are designed to execute people en masse. Clinton did nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is an OUTRAGE! MILLIONS have DIED already. These ATROCITIES cannot continue. Thank God we have a strong leader like GEORGE W. BUSH who isn't afraid to confront Germany head-on, to jump in with both guns blazing. That damn LIBERAL Clinton just sat around the White House reading reports and becoming informed. We don't have time for such nonsense. We MUST invade Germany NOW before their next attack comes in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD! Are you with me, or do YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE?!!

:|



Since some of you seem to be in deep denial about the incredibly obvious, the fact that Bush used old intelligence to build his excuse for invasion is much of the problem. Things change. Time passes. Old intelligence is bad intelligence.

Furthermore, contrary to your ill-informed bleating, Clinton did act on this intelligence. Using current, first-hand intelligence provided by Scott Ritter and his team, we bombed Iraq's WMD facilities for four days. According to Ritter, these attacks completely destroyed Iraq's nuclear abilities and destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. Ritter estimated the bombing destroyed at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's bio/chem abilities, and that by 2002, any remaining bio/chem agents were worthless "goo".

That's the difference in a nutshell. Clinton used accurate intelligence to conduct targeted strikes on real targets. Bush rushed to invade Iraq using bad, often bogus intelligence to sell his plot to the American public. Clinton addressed a problem. Bush decided to try his hand at nation-building.
Did I blame Clinton?

You are, of course, referring to operation Desert Fox, conducted in December 1998.
But I thought Saddam destroyed all his weapons immediately following the first gulf war.
If we took out all the weapons in 1998, then why are there so many democrats stating, in 2001 and later, that they have no doubt that Saddam has and is continuing to develop WMD?
Yes. But you're dodging the real issue, your claim that Bush is not at fault since he used Clinton's intelligence.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: LordSegan
It was only shared by democrats because the ADMINISTRATION and its AGENCIES SAID HE HAD WMD.
Yes, the CLINTON administration and it's agencies.

"the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Clinton was still in office in 1998.
Hmmm, most of the democrats now say that Iraq destroyed all their weapons immediately following the first gulf war (92,93)
Hallelujah! I have seen the light! I should have known it was Clinton's fault. It is always Clinton's fault.

Now that I think about it, this isn't the first time Clinton ignored vital intel. I know for a fact that Clinton knew of intelligence about gas chambers in Germany. These gas chambers are designed to execute people en masse. Clinton did nothing. Nada. Zip.

This is an OUTRAGE! MILLIONS have DIED already. These ATROCITIES cannot continue. Thank God we have a strong leader like GEORGE W. BUSH who isn't afraid to confront Germany head-on, to jump in with both guns blazing. That damn LIBERAL Clinton just sat around the White House reading reports and becoming informed. We don't have time for such nonsense. We MUST invade Germany NOW before their next attack comes in the form of a MUSHROOM CLOUD! Are you with me, or do YOU SUPPORT GENOCIDE?!!

:|



Since some of you seem to be in deep denial about the incredibly obvious, the fact that Bush used old intelligence to build his excuse for invasion is much of the problem. Things change. Time passes. Old intelligence is bad intelligence.

Furthermore, contrary to your ill-informed bleating, Clinton did act on this intelligence. Using current, first-hand intelligence provided by Scott Ritter and his team, we bombed Iraq's WMD facilities for four days. According to Ritter, these attacks completely destroyed Iraq's nuclear abilities and destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities. Ritter estimated the bombing destroyed at least 90% to 95% of Iraq's bio/chem abilities, and that by 2002, any remaining bio/chem agents were worthless "goo".

That's the difference in a nutshell. Clinton used accurate intelligence to conduct targeted strikes on real targets. Bush rushed to invade Iraq using bad, often bogus intelligence to sell his plot to the American public. Clinton addressed a problem. Bush decided to try his hand at nation-building.
Did I blame Clinton?

You are, of course, referring to operation Desert Fox, conducted in December 1998.
But I thought Saddam destroyed all his weapons immediately following the first gulf war.
If we took out all the weapons in 1998, then why are there so many democrats stating, in 2001 and later, that they have no doubt that Saddam has and is continuing to develop WMD?
Yes. But you're dodging the real issue, your claim that Bush is not at fault since he used Clinton's intelligence.
No I'm not.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
I'm not arguing that Bush is blameless, only that he is not guilty of intentionally deceiving the public.
I'm simply arguing that his beliefs about WMD, while apparently incorrect, were shared by Clinton and the democrats.
And that these beliefs were based on both the intelligence gathered under his watch, as well as that gathered under the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying Bush did everything right. Just that if the accusations of conspiracy and intentional deception were true, it would be an indictment of Clinton as well as Bush.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes. But you're dodging the real issue, your claim that Bush is not at fault since he used Clinton's intelligence.
No I'm not.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
I'm not arguing that Bush is blameless, only that he is not guilty of intentionally deceiving the public.
I'm simply arguing that his beliefs about WMD, while apparently incorrect, were shared by Clinton and the democrats.
And that these beliefs were based on both the intelligence gathered under his watch, as well as that gathered under the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying Bush did everything right. Just that if the accusations of conspiracy and intentional deception were true, it would be an indictment of Clinton as well as Bush.
That might hold water if the Bush administration passively repeated Clinton-era intelligence but gathered no intelligence of its own. It would be reckless and incompetent, but plausible. Unfortunately, as has been well-documented and reported here, the Bush administration in general, Cheney in particular, actively manipulated intelligence information to support their agenda. The intelligence information they publicized was completely one-sided; all contrary interpretations were suppressed. They lied to Conngress, America, the U.N., and the world to try to sell their invasion of Iraq.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
From that other thread you got owned on

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
Text

Ok your turn bold everytime the sited Clintions speechs as the intelligeance they were using.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
2
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Shanti
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes. But you're dodging the real issue, your claim that Bush is not at fault since he used Clinton's intelligence.
No I'm not.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
I'm not arguing that Bush is blameless, only that he is not guilty of intentionally deceiving the public.
I'm simply arguing that his beliefs about WMD, while apparently incorrect, were shared by Clinton and the democrats.
And that these beliefs were based on both the intelligence gathered under his watch, as well as that gathered under the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying Bush did everything right. Just that if the accusations of conspiracy and intentional deception were true, it would be an indictment of Clinton as well as Bush.
That might hold water if the Bush administration passively repeated Clinton-era intelligence but gathered no intelligence of its own. It would be reckless and incompetent, but plausible. Unfortunately, as has been well-documented and reported here, the Bush administration in general, Cheney in particular, actively manipulated intelligence information to support their agenda. The intelligence information they publicized was completely one-sided; all contrary interpretations were suppressed. They lied to Conngress, America, the U.N., and the world to try to sell their invasion of Iraq.
I've not yet seen what I consider "well-documented" proof of intentional misleading.
Whether they failed in ignoring warnings about the reliability of the intelligence remains to be seen.
It is hard to know for sure what information is accurate and what is not.
But assume they have varying reports coming in.
Wouldn't you be more likely to believe in the validity of those reports which more closely match the massive amounts of information you have been given by the previous administration?
And wouldn't you be more likely to question the validity of information that is contrary to all the information you previously had?

If it is accepted as fact, even by the opposition, that Saddam has WMD's and ongoing WMD programs, and these "facts" are supported by 10 years of intelligence information, I would also tend to be skeptical of a few isolated reports that questioned these facts.
Maybe Bush failed to give proper credibility to some of the intelligence. But the thousands and thousands of pages of intelligence information gathered by Clinton's administration over the previous 8 years, all of which pointed to the continued development of WMD's, certainly played some part in this failure.

I'm out now.
Could another Bush supporter please jump in and spell me for a few rounds?:beer:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
To add to Spencer278's list, here is my favorite, for the people who now try to claim Bush never tried to tie Iraq to 9/11:
Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
I'll grant you the source isn't terribly credible, but still ...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY